DOCSLIB.ORG

Sotomayor August 11 Mgdc NEED NEW GRAPHS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sotomayor August 11 Mgdc NEED NEW GRAPHS “Not that Smart”: Sonia Sotomayor and the Construction of Merit Guy-Uriel Charles, Daniel L. Chen & Mitu Gulati Duke University School of Law Abstract The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009 was criticized as sacrificing merit on the altar of identity politics. According to critics, Sotomayor was simply “not that smart”. For some conservative critics, her selection illustrated the costs of affirmative action policies, in that this particular choice was going to produce a lower quality Supreme Court. For liberal critics, many were concerned that the President, by selecting Sotomayor, was squandering an opportunity to appoint an intellectual counterweight to conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Using a set of basic measures of judicial merit, such as publication and citation rates for the years 2004-06, when Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, we compare her performance to that of her colleagues on the federal appeals courts. Sotomayor matches up well. She might turn out to be more of a force on the Court than the naysayers predicted. “NOT THAT SMART”: SONIA SOTOMAYOR AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF MERIT Guy-Uriel Charles Daniel L. Chen Mitu Gulati1 I. “NOT NEARLY AS SMART AS SHE SEEMS TO THINK SHE IS” When President Barack Obama was considering whether to nominate to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, then a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a prominent law professor, Laurence Tribe, wrote a letter to the President opposing Sotomayor’s potential nomination on the ground that “she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is.”2 While Tribe’s assessment was intended as a private communication, others were saying something similar in public. 3 Jeffrey Rosen, another legal academic, wrote an article in the New Republic questioning Sotomayor’s merit. Based on anonymous sources, Rosen reported that there was widespread skepticism among the judges and academics familiar with Sotomayor’s work, regarding her capabilities for the job. The consistent theme was a concern that Sotomayor was simply “not that smart”.4 Even those on the Democratic side of the aisle, Rosen noted, appeared to have misgivings about Sotomayor’s intellectual capabilities. It was not long before the conventional narrative became that Sotomayor was a mediocre legal mind. Commentators accused President Obama of having 1 Duke Law School faculty. For comments, thanks to Stephen Choi, Joseph Blocher, Al Brophy, Kim Krawiec, Daria Roithmayr and Angela Willig. For research assistance, we are grateful to Chris Battles, Heather Horst, Michelle Huang, Chris McCurdy, and Mark Wu. The Center for Race, Law and Politics at Duke provided research support. The analysis here builds on two blog posts done by Eric Posner at the time of Sotomayor’s nomination. See Eric A. Posner, Judge Sonia Sotomayor: What the Data Show, The Volokh Conspiracy (May 2009) (available at http://lists.powerblogs.com/pipermail/volokh/2009-May/017020.html); Eric A. Posner, Judge Sotomayor: More Data; And a New Conclusion (May 2009) (available at http://www.mail- archive.com/[email protected]/msg17205.html) 2 For discussion of the Tribe letter, see Ed Whelan, Tribe to Obama: “Not Nearly as Smart as She Seems to Think She is” (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/251301/tribe-obama- sotomayor-not-nearly-smart-she-seems-think-she-ed-whelan). For the letter, see http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20101028_tribeletter.pdf 3 See Countdown with Keith Olberman (interview with Jonathan Turley, May 2009) (available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30950928#30950928); P.J. Gladnick, Liberal Jonathan Turley: Sotomayor Lacks Intellectual Depth, NewsBusters.Com, May 27th, 2009 (available at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/05/27/liberal-jonathan-turley-sotomayor-lacks- intellectual-depth) (quoting Turley as characterizing Sotomayor as lacking intellectual depth, but describing Diane Wood as “blazingly brilliant”). 4 See Jeffrey Rosen, The Case Against Sonia Sotomayor, The New Republic, May 4, 2009. 2 sacrificed merit for identity politics (“biography over brains,” in the words of Washington Post commentator, Dana Milbank).5 For many, she was not in the pool of the best-qualified candidates, even if it was the case that Obama wanted to pick a female justice. There were others, such as Diane Wood a former law professor at the University of Chicago and judge on the Seventh Circuit and Elena Kagan the former dean of the Harvard Law School and, at the time, Solicitor General of the United States, who they thought were smarter and more deserving. While supporters of Wood and Kagan often depicted them as brainy or brilliant, Sotomayor was lucky if her supporters described her as workmanlike and competent. 6 To us, a striking aspect of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination was that this public and negative assessment of her merit was made without much factual support. One might even argue that the initial presumption should have been in her favor. After all, she graduated with honors from Princeton; was a graduate of the Yale Law School; and spent more than a decade on the Court of Appeals following stints as a trial judge and a federal prosecutor. It is hard to look at her credentials and conclude reflexively that she was unqualified for the Supreme Court. That is, unless one applied a high discount to her achievements on the theory that her success was largely attributable to affirmative action. A theme running through much of the public discussion of her candidacy was that this appointment, more than most, represented the triumph of identity politics over merit.7 One could not escape the fact that she was going be the first Latina on the Supreme Court or that President Obama had considered and nominated her in part because she was Latina.8 Our goal in this Essay is to provide some data against which to test the claims of Sotomayor’s mediocrity. Prior to being nominated to the Court, she had been a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for roughly a decade. The pool of judges on the Courts of Appeals is the primary one from which Supreme Court justices are chosen these days. That means that we should be able to compare Sotomayor’s performance to that of her peers to get a rough sense of just how she matches up. 5 See Dana Milbank, Washington Sketch: Sonia Sotomayor in the Ballpark, Washington Post, May 27, 2009; see also Somin, infra note __. 6 See http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/07/over-1000-law-professors-join-letter-endorsing- sotomayor/; see also Richard Cohen, Sonia Sotomayor: A Safe Soporific Bet for the Supreme Court, Washington Post, July 20, 2009; Milbank, supra note 7 See Ilya Somin, Commentary: Sotomayor Pick Not Based on Merit, CNN.com (available at http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-27/politics/shapiro.scotus.identity_1_judge-sotomayor-hispanic- supreme-court-sonia-sotomayor?_s=PM:POLITICS). 8 E.g., Joe Conason, Sotomayor is not Clarence Thomas, Salon.com, May 29, 2009 (available at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2009/05/29/clarence_thomas). 3 We use two categories of measures to evaluate Sotomayor’s performance relative to that of all the other active judges on the Courts of Appeals over the period 2004-06. The categories are publications and citations. As we explain in the next section, the nine measures we use within those categories should give us a rough sense of the skill and effort that Judge Sotomayor brought to her job, in comparison to her peers. In constructing these comparisons, to test claims that were made about Sotomayor during her nomination, we are not writing on a blank slate. Other scholars have subjected the repeated claims that were made about Sotomayor being an “activist” judge to empirical testing. The claims were found wanting.9 And our analysis builds on a preliminary examination reported by Professor Eric Posner in two blog posts in 2009. He compared Sotomayor’s performance on the appeals court to that of the ten other judges whose names had been mentioned as potential candidates for the Court and found that she did well.10 We expand on that analysis in three ways: by comparing Sotomayor’s numbers to the full set of 136 judges who were active during the years 2004-06, by using additional measures, and by controlling for structural differences across the federal circuits. The question of how best to construct objective measures of judicial performance has been the topic of debate in recent years. The measures we use, citations and publications, are among the more familiar ones in the literature.11 We should note though that these measures have come in for their share of criticism and other measures have been proposed.12 We will not rehash the debate here.13 If Sotomayor’s performance, while on the appeals court, had been mediocre, we would expect to find that in comparison to her peers, she would have published few opinions and that those opinions would have had little impact because they 9 See Corey Rayburn Yung, Flexing Judicial Muscle: An Empirical Study of Judicial Activism in the Federal Courts, __ Nw. U. L. Rev. __ (2011); Monica Youn, Judge Sotomayor’s Record in Constitutional Cases, Brennan Center Report (2009); Marcia Coyle, Sotomayor is No Activist Judge Says Author, National Law Journal __(2009 10 Posner’s analysis was done on the basis of data that was collected jointly with Stephen Choi and one of us. For a report on that analysis, see Assessing Sotomayor’s Influence, N.Y. Times, (NYTimes.com), May 28, 2009. 11 See William Landes, et al., Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of the Federal Courts of Appeals, 27 J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dartmouth College Case Symposium Presenters March 1-2, 2019 Akhil Reed Amar Thomas Barnico
    Dartmouth College Case Symposium Presenters March 1-2, 2019 Akhil Reed Amar Sterling Professor of Law Yale Law School Professor Akhil Reed Amar teaches constitutional law in both Yale College and Yale Law School. After graduating from Yale College, summa cum laude, in 1980 and from Yale Law School in 1984, and clerking for then Judge (now Justice) Stephen Breyer, Amar joined the Yale faculty in 1985 at the age of 26. His work has won awards from both the American Bar Association and the Federalist Society, and he has been cited by Supreme Court justices across the spectrum in more than three dozen cases—tops in his generation. He regularly testifies before Congress at the invitation of both parties; and in surveys of judicial citations and/or scholarly citations, he invariably ranks among America’s five most-cited mid-career legal scholars. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of the American Bar Foundation’s Outstanding Scholar Award. In 2008 he received the DeVane Medal—Yale’s highest award for teaching excellence. He has written widely for popular publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time, and The Atlantic. He was an informal consultant to the popular TV show, The West Wing, and his constitutional scholarship has been showcased on a wide range of broadcasts, including The Colbert Report, Up with Chris Hayes, Tucker Carlson Tonight, Morning Joe, AC360, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11th Hour with Brian Williams, Fox News @Night with Shannon Bream, Fareed Zakaria GPS, Erin Burnett Outfront, and Constitution USA with Peter Sagal.
    [Show full text]
  • Faculty Activities
    faculty activities Bruce Ackerman • “Development lawyering, Between Equality and publications Subordination: The Politics of legal Knowledge in • Goodbye Montesquieu, in S. Rose-Ackerman & Global North-South Academic Exchange,” Yale law P. Lindseth eds., Comparative Administrative Law 128 School, Mar. 24, 2012 (2011) publications • Nixon In Iran?, Huffington Post, Mar. 19, 2012 • Developing Citizenship, 9 Issues in Legal Scholarship • The Legal Case Against Attacking Iran, L.A. Times, 1 (oct. 2011) (online) Mar. 5, 2012 Bruce Ackerman • Reconstructing Citizenship for the Twenty First Century, Ian Ayres an Interview with Bruce Ackerman, La Vie des Idees, lectures and addresses Mar. 5, 2012 • “The Rise of Data Driven Decision Making,” IBM Tokyo, • How Congress Can Overrule Citizens United Nov. 8 (with I. Ayres), Huffington Post, Feb. 9, 2012 • “how to Regulate opt out: An Economic Theory of • Recess Appointments: Release the Legal Advice, Altering Rules” (NYU, Yale, University of Connecticut Wall St. J., Jan. 11, 2012 law Schools) • Washington Standoff, L.A. Times, Jan. 6, 2012 • Information Escrows, Berkeley and Yale • A Christmas Present for the Pentagon, Slate, Dec. 28 • 9 Randomized Tests to Improve Tax Compliance, hMRC Muneer I. Ahmad 2011 Debt Management, london • A United States of Europe?, L.A. Times, Dec. 14, 2011 publications • The Law School Experience [letter], N.Y. Times, Dec. 5, • Anti-Incentives: The Power of Resisted Temptation, Eur. 2011 Fin. Rev. 40 (Feb.-Mar. 2012) • Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling Will Politicize • Randomizing Law, 159 U. Pa. L. Rev. 929 (2011) (with Judicial Process, Daily Beast, Nov. 15, 2011 M. Abramowicz & Y. listokin) • Don’t Tax the Rich.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Biographies
    Confrontation, Collaboration, and Cooperation: (En)Countering Disagreement in Pursuit of Public Interest The Fourteenth Annual Liman Colloquium March 3-4, 2011 Yale Law School Sponsored by Yale Law School and the Liman Public Interest Program SPEAKERS Nan Aron President, Alliance for Justice and AFJ Action Campaign Nan Aron is the President of the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a national association of public interest and consumer rights organizations, and its partner advocacy organization, the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign (AFJAC). Aron founded AFJ in 1979 and continues to guide the organization in its mission to advance the cause of justice for all Americans, strengthen the public interest community's influence on national policy, and foster the next generation of advocates. In 1985, she founded AFJ's Judicial Selection Project, a leading voice in the efforts to achieve a fair and independent judiciary and a regular participant in the often-controversial judicial nominations process. For the last decade, AFJ has produced films to help educate the public about social justice issues and expose students to careers in public interest advocacy; in 2010, “Crude Justice” examined the effects of the Deep Horizon oil spill. Aron is a frequent speaker at universities, law schools, corporations, nonprofits, and foundations, and her writing has appeared in publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, USA Today, and Vanity Fair. Samuel Bagenstos Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Samuel Bagenstos is Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving the Federal Circuit
    SAVING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Paul R. Gugliuzza* INTRODUCTION Is it time to abolish the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases? In the thought-provoking speech at the center of this symposium, Judge Diane Wood says yes.1 The Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction, she argues, provides too much legal uniformity, which harms the patent system.2 But rather than eliminating the court altogether, Judge Wood proposes to save the Federal Circuit by letting appellants in patent cases choose the forum, allowing them to appeal either to the Federal Circuit or to the regional circuit encompassing the district court.3 Judge Wood is in good company arguing that the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction should be eliminated. In their pioneering article, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, Professors Craig Nard and John Duffy proposed to replace the court’s exclusive jurisdiction with a model of “polycentric decision making” under which two or three courts would hear patent appeals, permitting inter-court dialogue and enhancing the possibility for self-correction.4 Judge Wood’s colleague on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner, also has recently said that he “[doesn’t] think the Federal Circuit has * Copyright © 2014 Paul R. Gugliuzza. Associate Professor, Boston University School of Law. For comments, thanks to Jonas Anderson, Jack Beermann, Jonathan Darrow, Stacey Dogan, Wendy Gordon, Tim Holbrook, Megan La Belle, Mark Lemley, Mike Meurer, Michael Morley, Rachel Rebouché, David Schwartz, David Walker, and students and faculty at the Boston University School of Law IP Workshop. Thanks also to the Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property for the opportunity to respond to Judge Wood’s remarks.
    [Show full text]
  • Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF
    [Show full text]
  • NGA | 2017 Annual Report
    N A TIO NAL G ALL E R Y O F A R T 2017 ANNUAL REPORT ART & EDUCATION W. Russell G. Byers Jr. Board of Trustees COMMITTEE Buffy Cafritz (as of September 30, 2017) Frederick W. Beinecke Calvin Cafritz Chairman Leo A. Daly III Earl A. Powell III Louisa Duemling Mitchell P. Rales Aaron Fleischman Sharon P. Rockefeller Juliet C. Folger David M. Rubenstein Marina Kellen French Andrew M. Saul Whitney Ganz Sarah M. Gewirz FINANCE COMMITTEE Lenore Greenberg Mitchell P. Rales Rose Ellen Greene Chairman Andrew S. Gundlach Steven T. Mnuchin Secretary of the Treasury Jane M. Hamilton Richard C. Hedreen Frederick W. Beinecke Sharon P. Rockefeller Frederick W. Beinecke Sharon P. Rockefeller Helen Lee Henderson Chairman President David M. Rubenstein Kasper Andrew M. Saul Mark J. Kington Kyle J. Krause David W. Laughlin AUDIT COMMITTEE Reid V. MacDonald Andrew M. Saul Chairman Jacqueline B. Mars Frederick W. Beinecke Robert B. Menschel Mitchell P. Rales Constance J. Milstein Sharon P. Rockefeller John G. Pappajohn Sally Engelhard Pingree David M. Rubenstein Mitchell P. Rales David M. Rubenstein Tony Podesta William A. Prezant TRUSTEES EMERITI Diana C. Prince Julian Ganz, Jr. Robert M. Rosenthal Alexander M. Laughlin Hilary Geary Ross David O. Maxwell Roger W. Sant Victoria P. Sant B. Francis Saul II John Wilmerding Thomas A. Saunders III Fern M. Schad EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Leonard L. Silverstein Frederick W. Beinecke Albert H. Small President Andrew M. Saul John G. Roberts Jr. Michelle Smith Chief Justice of the Earl A. Powell III United States Director Benjamin F. Stapleton III Franklin Kelly Luther M.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Power to Terminate International Agreements Harold Hongju Koh Abstract
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM N OVEMBER 12, 2018 Presidential Power to Terminate International Agreements Harold Hongju Koh abstract. Could President Trump unilaterally remove the United States tomorrow from all of the thousands of international agreements to which the United States is currently a party? Com- mon sense would suggest no, but the conventional wisdom among legal academics has leaned the other way. This Essay argues that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the Constitution affords the President no general unilateral power to terminate or withdraw from any international agreement, without regard to its subject matter. Neither historical practice nor Supreme Court precedent dic- tates that conclusion, nor does the Court’s misunderstood nonjusticiability holding forty years ago in Goldwater v. Carter. Constitutional, functional, and comparative-law considerations all cut the other way. Instead of a blanket unilateral power of presidential termination, this Essay suggests that the Constitution requires a “mirror principle,” whereby the degree of legislative approval needed to exit an international agreement must parallel the degree of legislative approval originally required to enter it. Such a mirror principle makes the degree of legislative approval required to enter or exit any particular agreement “substance dependent,” turning on which branch of gov- ernment has substantive constitutional prerogatives to make law in any particular area of foreign policy. The Essay concludes by suggesting better foreign policy mechanisms, more reflective of modern realities, to guide America’s process of agreement unmaking in the future. introduction Could Donald Trump unilaterally withdraw the United States from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other major longstanding treaties and international organizations? These scenarios are neither unforeseeable nor hypothetical.
    [Show full text]
  • EDWARD L. BARRETT, JR. LECTURE on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Paying “Decent Respect” to World Opinion on the Death Penalty
    KOHMACRO 5/9/2002 2:10 PM University of U.C. DAVIS LAW REVIEW California Davis VOLUME 35 JUNE 2002 NUMBER 5 EDWARD L. BARRETT, JR. LECTURE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Paying “Decent Respect” to World Opinion on the Death Penalty Harold Hongju Koh* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PART OF OUR LAW.................................. 1087 * Harold Hongju Koh, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale University; U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 1998-2001. This essay grows out of the 2001 Edward L. Barrett, Jr. Lecture on Constitutional Law, delivered at the University of California, Davis School of Law on November 7, 2001. It arises, in part, from my work as counsel for amici curiae Diplomats Morton Abramowitz, et al., before the U.S. Supreme Court in McCarver v. North Carolina, No. 00-8727 (U.S. cert. dismissed Sept. 25, 2001) and Atkins v. Virginia, No. 00-8452 (U.S. argued Feb. 20, 2002) . It also draws upon presentations given to the Yale Law School Schell Center Human Rights Workshop and the Connecticut Bar Foundation Symposium on the death penalty, and from shorter articles published in the New York Times and on the Project Syndicate website, www.project-syndicate.org. I am deeply grateful to Dean Rex Perschbacher, Associate Dean Kevin Johnson, and many other friends for their gracious hospitality during my visit to King Hall: Judge David F. Levi, Justice Cruz Reynoso, Professors Bill Ong Hing, Anupam Chander, Madhavi Sunder and Tobias Wolff. Akhil Amar, Sandra Babcock, Robert Burt, Ray Bonner, Paige Chabora, Deena Hurwitz, Paul Kahn, Jenny Martinez, Jim Silk, Kate Stith and Strobe Talbott provided welcome insights, and J.
    [Show full text]
  • KATE STITH Yale Law School, P.O
    October 25, 2020 KATE STITH Yale Law School, P.O. 208215, New Haven, CT 06520-8215 Courier: 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 432-4835 [email protected] EMPLOYMENT 1998–present: Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law, Yale Law School Acting Dean: Spring 2009 Deputy Dean: 2003–04, 1999–2001 1991–1997: Professor of Law, Yale Law School 1985–1990: Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School 1981–1984: Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York (prosecuting white collar crime and organized crime) 1980–1981: Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 1979–1980: Staff Economist, Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 1978–1979: Law Clerk to Justice Byron R. White, Washington, DC 1977–1978: Law Clerk to Judge Carl McGowan, United States Court of Appeals, Washington, DC LEGAL EDUCATION Harvard Law School, J.D., 1977 Articles Editor, HARVARD LAW REVIEW Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project GRADUATE EDUCATION Harvard Kennedy School, Master in Public Policy, 1977 (joint four-year program with Harvard Law School) Master’s Thesis: THE POLITICS AND POLICY OF TAX REFORM UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION Dartmouth College, B.A., 1973 Highest Distinction in Economics Phi Beta Kappa Rank in Class: First 1 October 25, 2020 COURSES and SEMINARS Constitutional Law; Cuba and the United States; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure: Investigations; Criminal Procedure: Adjudication; Comparative Criminal Sentencing; Criminal Sentencing; Federal Criminal Prosecution; Federal Criminal Law; Special Counsels: From Watergate to the Present; Free Exercise Clinic: Fieldwork and Seminar; Opioid Crisis; Prosecution Externship; Separation of Powers; Theories of the Fourth Amendment; University Governance; advanced seminars in criminal law and constitutional separation of powers PUBLICATIONS DEFINING FEDERAL CRIMES (Aspen Press) (1st ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraterritoriality of Antitrust Law in the Us and Abroad: a Hot Issue Washington, Dc I September 28, 2015
    EXTRATERRITORIALITY OF ANTITRUST LAW IN THE US AND ABROAD: A HOT ISSUE WASHINGTON, DC I SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 3rd Annual Joint Conference - Concurrences Review & GW Law ATTENDEES A Turquoise Heenan Paris Airbus America Heritage Foundation Allen & Overy India Competition Apellate Tribunal American Antitrust Institute Inter-American Development Bank Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider Intesa Sanpaolo Baker & Miller Kim & Chang Baker Botts Kroll Ontrack Bates White Maersk Bird & Bird Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal Bloom Strategic Counsel Mlex Bloomberg BNA Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Brown Rudnick Morrison & Foerster Bryan Cave National University of Advanced Legal Studies Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft O’Melveny & Myers Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton OECD Competition Commission Clifford Chance Paul Hastings Contribuyentes por Respeto Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Cornerstone Research PayPal Covington & Burling Policy & Regulatory Report Criterion Economics Qualcomm Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg Ropes & Gray Davis Polk Rubin Delegation of the European Union to the USA Scott and Scott Deloitte Shell Oil Company Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig Shin & Kim / Kobre & Kim Economists Incorporated Sidley Austin Eimer Stahl SNCF Geodis eTERA EUROPE Souto Correa Advogados Eton Park Steptoe & Johnson Fedders Lloyd Corporation Limited The Chisholm Group Florida Evergreen The World Bank Group Fountain Court Chambers University of Illinois Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer University of Pennsylvania Garrigues US Department of Justice George Mason University US Federal Trade Commission George Washington University White & Case Georgetown University Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati GeyerGorey Winston & Strawn Global Competition Review Yale School of Management Hausfeld Yulchon 2 - EXTRATERRITORIALITY OF ANTITRUST LAW IN THE US AND ABROAD: A HOT ISSUE PROGRAM 2:30 pm WELCOME REMARKS 4:15 pm NEW MEANINGS William E.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts Under Pressure: Protecting Rule of Law in the Age of Trump
    COURTS UNDER PRESSURE: PROTECTING RULE OF LAW IN THE AGE OF TRUMP NOVEMBER 10, 2017 ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. Among our core priorities, we fight to protect voting rights, end mass incarceration, strengthen checks and balances, maintain the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and preserve Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. Part think tank, part public interest law center, part cutting-edge communications hub, we start with rigorous research. We craft innovative policies. And we fight for them — in Congress and the states, the courts, and in the court of public opinion. Since its founding two decades ago, the Brennan Center for Justice has emerged as a national leader in the movement for democracy reform. The Fair Courts project at the Brennan Center pursues research, policy advocacy, and litigation to promote and preserve norms of judicial independence and equal justice for all, safeguard courts against political pressure and special interest influence, and promote a diverse bench. ABOUT THIS CONVENING With our democracy under strain, the courts are on the front lines, constraining the executive and other government actors in cases that regularly put our judicial system in the public eye. Courts have also been put on defense. The President has suggested the courts should be blamed for terrorist attacks, targeted judges for their decisions, and pardoned a government official who refused to follow court orders.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance†
    Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: † An Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance Stephen Choi* ** Mitu Gulati † © 2004 Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati. * Roger J. Traynor Professor, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). ** Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Kindly e-mail comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. Erin Dengan, Édeanna Johnson-Chebbi, Margaret Rodgers, Rishi Sharma, Jennifer Dukart, and Alice Kuo provided research assistance. Kimberly Brickell deserves special thanks for her work. Aspects of this draft benefited from discussions with Alex Aleinikoff, Scott Baker, Lee Epstein, Tracey George, Prea Gulati, Vicki Jackson, Mike Klarman, Kim Krawiec, Kaleb Michaud, Un Kyung Park, Greg Mitchell, Jim Rossi, Ed Kitch, Paul Mahoney, Jim Ryan, Paul Stefan, George Triantis, Mark Seidenfeld, and Eric Talley. For comments on the draft itself, we are grateful to Michael Bailey, Suzette Baker, Bill Bratton, James Brudney, Steve Bundy, Brannon Denning, Phil Frickey, Michael Gerhardt, Steve Goldberg, Pauline Kim, Bill Marshall, Don Langevoort, Judith Resnik, Keith Sharfman, Steve Salop, Michael Seidman, Michael Solimine, Gerry Spann, Mark Tushnet, David Vladeck, Robin West, Arnold Zellner, Kathy Zeiler, Todd Zywicki and participants at workshops at Berkeley, Georgetown, Virginia, FSU, and UNC - Chapel Hill. Given the unusually large number of people who have e-mailed us with comments on this project, it is likely that there are some who we have inadvertently failed to thank. Our sincerest apologies to them. Disclosure: Funding for this project was provided entirely by our respective law schools. One of us was a law clerk to two of the judges in the sample: Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit and Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit.
    [Show full text]